Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: Shades of Gay... (Read 13590 times)

It is a question that I was wondering for years for some of my friends feel to never of had sex with the opposite sex is truly gay, or is it they just had an early start to the Gay gene trigger at, let me say, age 3, if you believe in such a thing. Or it could be for others just a minor delay in full human sexuality that allows for sexual experimentation. (Hell, I know a guy that didn't come out until he was forty) It could be just a variation of early human sexually that is rated based on the "Bell curve." blab, blab, blab... What the hub, bub? This inquiring mind wish to know your opinion.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I don't think it's nitpicking. I self-identified clearly as gay by the age of 16 (I knew earlier but thought it was a phase, 16 was the age I stopped thinking it was a phase) and yet I had sex with two different girls in college, even though I was also doing it with guys. In fact, one girl I met at a gay club.

Hence I was a gay man (identity wise) that engaged in heterosexual behavior.

What's your definition of the word "many"? I swear I don't think I've met a gay virgin in my entire life. I'm sure I must have, but I would not use the word "many".

LOL, true. I meant, I have met 'quite a few' guys who 'say' that they don't engage in anal sex but do everything else. I've met many guys like that in some middle eastern countries, maybe it's got to do with social conditioning. Dunno.

Edited to add: There must be loads of virgin gay men in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan etc right?

LOL, true. I meant, I have met 'quite a few' guys who 'say' that they don't engage in anal sex but do everything else. I've met many guys like that in some middle eastern countries, maybe it's got to do with social conditioning. Dunno.

Oh, I didn't realize we meant specifically anal sex. The term "intercourse" can sometimes be broad enough to include oral sex, even though traditionally it was used as a term for heterosexual coitus.

These types of arguments typically circulate around the age old "nature vs. nurture" paradigm. I personally think human sexuality is a combination of both, and in some instances one variable may be a stronger influence than the other.

In the classes I have had in human sexuality and sociology, it is typically a hell worthy trespass from professors to even infer that sexuality is a "choice". However, considering that there is no data that is forthcoming in biology or genetics that I have ever read in the peer-reviewed literature, is it really so outrageous to make the argument?

I personally think the issue is far more complex than academia of any stripe can tackle, but I got some deeper insight from reading books from Michael Foucault on the subject. In particular, The History of Sexuality and The Archeology of Knowledge I found to be fantastic reads and a change in the rather dogmatic assertions on the subject you get from contemporary academia.

Since one canít be Ďmade gayí, just as one canít be Ďmade straightí, and since a gay person canít stop oneís self from having gay feelings no matter how hard they try, Iím much more inclined to believe that homosexual feelings are Ďinnateí in the same way as writing left-handed comes naturally to a left-handed person. Thus, if a self-identifying straight guy has many gay friends and one night ends up sleeping with a man, the logical inference Iíd draw is that he finally acted on his hitherto-suppressed gay tendencies, certainly not that his social surroundings pushed him to gaydom.

I personally consider same-sex attraction to be hereditary/ genetic. I think it was for me. Though I donít deny that Ďnurtureí may play an influential role for some people, In this context I think Ďnurtureí means a Ďconducive external environmentí enabling, rather than precluding, someone from acting freely, in accordance with their inner nature.

Since one canít be Ďmade gayí, just as one canít be Ďmade straightí, and since a gay person canít stop oneís self from having gay feelings no matter how hard they try, Iím much more inclined to believe that homosexual feelings are Ďinnateí in the same way as writing left-handed comes naturally to a left-handed person. Thus, if a self-identifying straight guy has many gay friends and one night ends up sleeping with a man, the logical inference Iíd draw is that he finally acted on his hitherto-suppressed gay tendencies, certainly not that his social surroundings pushed him to gaydom.

Interesting. When I had psyche and the subject of sexuality came up, theories were abound on the topic. Quite frankly, I consider about half of psychology to be quackery with good PR. Not 25 years ago, the DSM considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder, so you will have to forgive me for not placing too much stock in their understanding of the complexities of brain physiology, neurotransmitter interactions and synapses.

However, people like Carl Jung and even Frued suggested that it could be attributed to any other pathological or compulsive impulses noted in human behavior. People that act on compulsion are not "crazy", they are simply acting out based upon their own personal visions of social mores as it applies to them.

Maybe someday social and behavioral scientists will have a better understanding of why we humans do the things that we do, but then again, maybe not. At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself one simple question really: Do you really care what some tenured professor with a PhD has to say about how you live your life?

I have been in academics long enough to know that for every answer I am able to form an educated assertion on, there opens twice as many unanswered questions. Over a period of time, it becomes quite cyclical.

Quite frankly, I consider about half of psychology to be quackery with good PR. Not 25 years ago, the DSM considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder, so you will have to forgive me for not placing too much stock in their understanding of the complexities of brain physiology, neurotransmitter interactions and synapses.

Wow, seriously. You can find similar examples in any other scientific field. I thought you were in college.

Wow, seriously. You can find similar examples in any other scientific field. I thought you were in college.

Indeed; inconsistencies, differences of opinion, and lack of consensus can be found in almost any area of study. In my own field of comm and rhetoric, there is a particular subset of individuals called "critical theorists" who do not write much of anything original, and instead spend the great majority of their time finding flaws in the ideas of others. Foucault was often considered one such individual during his heyday of post-modernist writing. He drew a great deal of criticism from colleagues who used an argument against him that basically consisted of "Any idiot can burn down a bridge".

I tend to support a MOI (marketplace of ideas) approach to rhetoric. Whereby, a vast amount of information and theoretical information is out there for the individual to sift from at their leisure, to take and adapt as they see fit.

I normally use an analogy of a toolbox to express this idea. If you read a particular book on any given subject, you do not have to accept the entire premise of the book in total. Much like the toolbox in your garage, you can take from it what you need, and leave behind what you don't.

I generally find that the only people who argue that being gay is a choice, are not themselves gay. Any self-respecting homo knows we were born this way. We might fight the urges, but deep down the attraction never changes. Anyone who claims anything different, is either delusional or lying.

I generally find that the only people who argue that being gay is a choice, are not themselves gay. Any self-respecting homo knows we were born this way. We might fight the urges, but deep down the attraction never changes. Anyone who claims anything different, is either delusional or lying.

Joe

Granted and since I am not gay myself, I really do not have much room to theorize I guess, other than I tend to theorize and analyze everything. It is just how my brain works, and it can be to my determent at times.

Still, it is disingenuous of me to make assertions I can't substantiate, and I apologize if I hurt anyones feelings

Granted and since I am not gay myself, I really do not have much room to theorize I guess, other than I tend to theorize and analyze everything. It is just how my brain works, and it can be to my determent at times.

Still, it is disingenuous of me to make assertions I can't substantiate, and I apologize if I hurt anyones feelings

No apology needed, I was merely making an observation. I knew by reading your posts that you were not gay, otherwise you would already know the answer to the gay choice question.

It's the same idea as a white person, telling a black person how they feel or how they should act. It's impossible because the white person is not black.

Granted and since I am not gay myself, I really do not have much room to theorize I guess, other than I tend to theorize and analyze everything. It is just how my brain works, and it can be to my determent at times.

Still, it is disingenuous of me to make assertions I can't substantiate, and I apologize if I hurt anyones feelings

It doesn't hurt my feelings at all, but it does show me your "analysis" is rather lacking. For example, at what point did you make the choice to be heterosexual?

It doesn't hurt my feelings at all, but it does show me your "analysis" is rather lacking. For example, at what point did you make the choice to be heterosexual?

Most of what I know about such topics comes from books I have been required to read at one point or another, not from first hand experience (again, I study rhetoric). What we refer to in academia as "the dead white men" from the enlightenment period and post-modernist period.

My own sexuality? I can remember a strong physical attraction to females as early back as kindergarten (her name was Michelle Ethington, lol). It was as natural to me as peddling my bike up the street back in those days, and I gather that the same was probably true for many of you in terms of an attraction towards men.

All I was doing was sharing what I have learned, based upon what I have been taught in lectures, readings and papers I have wrote. I am not so brainwashed by school that I think everything in life can be explained by books.

Seroconverted: Early 80sTested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. Last regimen: Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky )Past regimensFun stuff (in the past): HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

If you didn't make a choice to be heterosexual why would you logically conclude that a homosexual did?

This is the question that always baffles me when people ask it. As if anyone would actually CHOOSE to be part of the last minority group that it's still ok to hate and demean. I tolerated this crap in the US for far too long and that's why we now live in Montreal. Why the hell does anyone care what we do in private?

Perhaps, if I would of stated anything of the sort, which I did not (unless you are fond of attempting to put words in my mouth).

Feel free to quote from my above passages if you find me in error.

Oh please. Save the "supposed victim" for someone else. Your comments supported the idea that homosexuality is influenced by many factors, none of which were genetic. I don't tell you what it's like to be a straight man, so stop suggesting you know what it is like to be a gay man.

From what I can tell this is COD's comments which have y'all fussin' and cluckin' like a bunch of bantams who think they've smelt a weasel:

Quote

These types of arguments typically circulate around the age old "nature vs. nurture" paradigm. I personally think human sexuality is a combination of both, and in some instances one variable may be a stronger influence than the other.

In the classes I have had in human sexuality and sociology, it is typically a hell worthy trespass from professors to even infer that sexuality is a "choice". However, considering that there is no data that is forthcoming in biology or genetics that I have ever read in the peer-reviewed literature, is it really so outrageous to make the argument?

Doesn't seem like such an outrageous opinion to me. He's right there's no evidence to support a specific genetic basis to homosexuality. Whether or not people make an "active choice" is another matter.

There's some recent research using functional MRI which suggests most of the "choices" we think we make are made before we're even aware of them.

Oh please. Save the "supposed victim" for someone else. Your comments supported the idea that homosexuality is influenced by many factors, none of which were genetic. I don't tell you what it's like to be a straight man, so stop suggesting you know what it is like to be a gay man.

Joe

You are correct, there is no genetic basis for sexuality. Be it gay, straight, trans, or any other number of possibilities. That does not mean that it does not exist, only that if it does, it has never been discovered. Moreover, do you really need a guy in a lab-coat and an electron microscope to make you feel legitimate about who you are as a person?

Do the ultimate scientific, social, genetic, (whatever) factors really matter in the grade scope of things? You are who you are, and be proud of that.

I am not unsympathetic to the plight of homosexuals, minorities, or other people who have been ostracized or pissed on by the establishment ( I have been with gay-straight alliance for years) but that does not mean that we can't have pleasant and civilized discussions on matters without inflaming each others tempers.

Can't that Puerto Rican "carer" you found passed in the dumpster behind the adult video store do the honours or has he sobered up and fled the scene?

MtD

That new one I met last week? Funny you should mention it -- here's the text conversation I had with him this afternoon:

Him: How are you going? 1:08 PMMe: I'm fine. What's up? 2:00 PMHim: I'm good. About to get out and enjoy this day. This sounds horrible and I apologize, but where did we meet? Must like you if you're in my phone. 2:07 PM

Seroconverted: Early 80sTested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. Last regimen: Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky )Past regimensFun stuff (in the past): HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

That new one I met last week? Funny you should mention it -- here's the text conversation I had with him this afternoon:

Him: How are you going? 1:08 PMMe: I'm fine. What's up? 2:00 PMHim: I'm good. About to get out and enjoy this day. This sounds horrible and I apologize, but where did we meet? Must like you if you're in my phone. 2:07 PM

And now you all know why I don't date.

You don't need to date anymore, love. It sounds as though you've found a keeper!

He's right there's no evidence to support a specific genetic basis to homosexuality. Whether or not people make an "active choice" is another matter.

True, there's no conclusive scientific evidence, but there is some data that lends credence to the view that biology does play a role (whether big or small is a matter of ongoing debate).

I know Wiki is slightly dubious source but here goes, for amusement if nothing else:

"-Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of a man being gay by 33%. This is now "one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation."

-A number of sections of the brain have been reported to be sexually dimorphic; that is, they vary between men and women. There have also been reports of variations in brain structure corresponding to sexual orientation. In 1990, Swaab and Hofman reported a difference in the size of the suprachiasmatic nucleus between homosexual and heterosexual men.In 1992, Allen and Gorski reported a difference related to sexual orientation in the size of the anterior commissure.

-The early fixation hypothesis includes research into prenatal development and the environmental factors that control masculinization of the brain. Some studies have seen pre-natal hormone exposures as the primary factor involved in determining sexual orientation.

Physiological

Some studies have found correlations between physiology of people and their sexuality. These studies provide evidence which they claim suggests that: Gay men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than no[50]n-gay men. Gay men and straight women have, on average, equally proportioned brain hemispheres. Lesbian women and straight men have, on average, slightly larger right brain hemispheres. The VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalamus is larger in men than in women, and larger in gay men than in heterosexual men. The average size of the INAH-3 in the brains of gay men is approximately the same size as INAH 3 in women, which is significantly smaller, and the cells more densely packed, than in heterosexual men's brains.

The anterior commissure is larger in women than men and was reported to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men, but a subsequent study found no such difference. Gay men's brains respond differently to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. The functioning of the inner ear and the central auditory system in lesbians and bisexual women are more like the functional properties found in men than in non-gay women (the researchers argued this finding was consistent with the prenatal hormonal theory of sexual orientation). The suprachiasmatic nucleus was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men, the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women. The startle response (eyeblink following a loud sound) is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women. Gay and non-gay people's brains respond differently to two putative sex pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine).The amygdala, a region of the brain, is more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material. Finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers may be different between non-gay and lesbian women. Gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than non-gay men and women;Simon LeVay argues that because "[h]and preference is observable before birth... [t]he observation of increased non-right-handness in gay people is therefore consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is influenced by prenatal processes," perhaps heredity. A study of 50 gay men found 23% had counterclockwise hair whirl, as opposed to 8% in the general population. This may correlate with left-handedness. Gay men have increased ridge density in the fingerprints on their left thumbs and pinkies. Length of limbs and hands of gay men is smaller compared to height than the general population, but only among white men.

Cognitive

Recent studies suggest the presence of subtle differences in the way gay people and non-gay people process certain kinds of information. Researchers have found that: Gay men and lesbians are more verbally fluent than heterosexuals of the same sex (but two studies did not find this result). Gay men may receive higher scores than non-gay men on tests of object location memory (no difference was found between lesbians and non-gay women)."

Seroconverted: Early 80sTested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. Last regimen: Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky )Past regimensFun stuff (in the past): HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

In the classes I have had in human sexuality and sociology, it is typically a hell worthy trespass from professors to even infer that sexuality is a "choice". However, considering that there is no data that is forthcoming in biology or genetics that I have ever read in the peer-reviewed literature, is it really so outrageous to make the argument?

Where's the data in peer-reviewed literature that you would use to assert that homosexuality is a choice?

If you're going to have a discussion with gays and throw around the idea that homosexuality is a choice, you have to expect a pretty vehement reaction to the contrary. Too many gay people have been beat up by their families, clergy, or conservatards in general with the argument that we chose to be homosexual. That is usually accompanied by either the tacit or explicit argument that because we made a choice, we don't deserve certain rights and privileges, because we could change our choice if we wanted to.

So saying homosexuality is a choice is pretty much a direct affront to who a gay person is. After a lifetime of hearing this, we are pretty fucking tired of it. If you didn't realize you would get this kind of response just by mentioning an idea that homosexuality is a choice, well, now you do know. Or, maybe you were actually trying to start a ruckus, since you are in the communications and rhetoric field. In that case, mission accomplished.

Regards,

Henry

Logged

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

Where's the data in peer-reviewed literature that you would use to assert that homosexuality is a choice?

If you're going to have a discussion with gays and throw around the idea that homosexuality is a choice, you have to expect a pretty vehement reaction to the contrary. Too many gay people have been beat up by their families, clergy, or conservatards in general with the argument that we chose to be homosexual. That is usually accompanied by either the tacit or explicit argument that because we made a choice, we don't deserve certain rights and privileges, because we could change our choice if we wanted to.

So saying homosexuality is a choice is pretty much a direct affront to who a gay person is. After a lifetime of hearing this, we are pretty fucking tired of it. If you didn't realize you would get this kind of response just by mentioning an idea that homosexuality is a choice, well, now you do know. Or, maybe you were actually trying to start a ruckus, since you are in the communications and rhetoric field. In that case, mission accomplished.

Regards,

Henry

If the argument for gay rights is based on the premise "we can't help it!" then it is pretty flimsy. If homosexuality was found to be a genetic marker and a "treatment" for homosexuality were created this argument would fall apart. There is more to sex than intercourse and there is more to being gay than sex. Morally and politically it doesn't matter if being gay is predetermined or chosen freely: the right to engage in sexual and personal relationships with other consenting adults is inherent.

I'm open to exploring the role of choice in sexuality and behavior. Some people's sexual attraction appears to be more fixed than others and not just in the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy. Some people have very specific interests, they only interested in a narrow range of stimuli or activities, where other people are more open to a wide variety of experiences: different sexual acts, multiple partners, partners of different ages, racial backgrounds, etc. Sexuality is a fascinating, complex subject and the influences of experience, choice, neurology and genetics should all be explored without fear that we might offend someone's sensibilities.

If the argument for gay rights is based on the premise "we can't help it!" then it is pretty flimsy. If homosexuality was found to be a genetic marker and a "treatment" for homosexuality were created this argument would fall apart. There is more to sex than intercourse and there is more to being gay than sex. Morally and politically it doesn't matter if being gay is predetermined or chosen freely: the right to engage in sexual and personal relationships with other consenting adults is inherent.

I'm open to exploring the role of choice in sexuality and behavior. Some people's sexual attraction appears to be more fixed than others and not just in the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy. Some people have very specific interests, they only interested in a narrow range of stimuli or activities, where other people are more open to a wide variety of experiences: different sexual acts, multiple partners, partners of different ages, racial backgrounds, etc. Sexuality is a fascinating, complex subject and the influences of experience, choice, neurology and genetics should all be explored without fear that we might offend someone's sensibilities.

I'm not sure I can see it that way. Though not to minimize the chance that extrinsic factors may play a role for some people (although I havenít met anyone who claims this, other than in the context of external environment facilitating actions on inner desires), if Ďsexualityí (whether gay, straight, bi or anywhere on the Kinsey Scale) is found to be genetic/hereditary, it does not automatically insinuate gayness as an aberration or a condition that needs to be cured, but rather erects a scientific backbone supporting the view that sexuality, is largely inborn or innate, much like other unique personal traits may be, like: being left-handed, ambidextrous, strong preferences or aversions for certain foods, being introverted or extroverted et al.

If scientific evidence backs the notion that sexuality (any kind of sexuality) is beyond personal control and not a caprice, nor a choice (as I believe it to be), it makes the moral and political arguments in favour of gay equality virtually infallible.

The subject, I concede, isnít black and white because sexuality, human emotions, impulses and actions arenít entirely rational and scientific a lot of the time, and thus, if someone found to have the Ďgay-geneí exhibits straight behaviour, it might weaken the case Ė or perhaps raise further questions ?!

If scientific evidence backs the notion that sexuality (any kind of sexuality) is beyond personal control and not a caprice, nor a choice (as I believe it to be), it makes the moral and political arguments in favour of gay equality virtually infallible.

My argument is that the right of consenting adults to engage in sexual and emotional relationships is morally and politically infallible regardless of whether sexual orientation is "beyond personal control". It is an inherent human right and not contingent on free will or lack there of.

The more I read the more evidence I find that supports that human behavior, not just sexual but all behavior, is more influenced by neurology and genetics than many people would like to admit. I am beginning to appreciate the philosophical perspective of materialism-- that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. We are our neurology.

Is there an intelligence difference between gays and straights? Or, between really fem or masculine gays? Read that last post. Sounds like something from a college thesis than a forum entry. I've noticed most here are able to express themselves so well and with an ample vocabulary. I don't have that ability. I use to think so, before coming here. Btw, I fall somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey Scale.

My argument is that the right of consenting adults to engage in sexual and emotional relationships is morally and politically infallible regardless of whether sexual orientation is "beyond personal control". It is an inherent human right and not contingent on free will or lack there of.

Of course, I totally agree with you on this.

However, I differ in that scientific evidence supporting the view that it is 'beyond personal control/choice' would somehow undermine arriving at the above viewpoint for the majority of people, in fact I think it would bring most people nearer to such a mindset.

A lot of straight people do think it is a choice or an aberration etc etc. Scientific evidence, if and when it surfaces, will counter that forcefully.